JW Collins

What is this about militia M47s and "spearparts"? Will armored gangs be rolling through my town soon?

Wow. Did that Sherman have a turret to start with, or was it some sort of recovery/engineering variant?

Having two crewmen in the hull and just one in the turret seems a bit unusual. If they're going with a manned turret they might as well put both the turret and gunner in it.

The British Army trains to do indirect fire with MGs in modern times? I thought WWII revealed that concept to be rather impractical?

Regarding Soviet 115mm cannons: - Was there a specific threat that drove the rather quick switch from the 115mm to 125mm caliber? Or was a case of planning ahead/because we can? - Is any "modern" 115mm ammunition being manufactured or offered? - Other than T-62 variants and the first T-64s, do any other tanks use this caliber? - Did the original T-64/T-64R have an autoloader for its 115mm cannon?

I bought it and am enjoying it. Damn Soviet artillery is a real pain in the ass in MP however. Maybe it's my imagination but it seems the developers toned down the American gear a bit. The Abrams and Bradley are rather slow, plus some variants of the BMP have better armor than the Bradley which doesn't make sense. My Apaches have a terrible habit of wasting their Hellfire missiles too.

Am I the only one who is rather unimpressed with the current design concepts being shown for the GCV program? While I think it is about time to develop a successor to the Bradley, the program itself seems to lack direction. These are the latest released images of the BAE design, and it looks to me like the idea is to put a MRAP, Bradley, and ever sensor/jammer known to man into one vehicle. I can understand the utility of these sensors and jammers, but when you need a dedicated compartment like that at the end of the vehicle maybe you should have specialized reconnaissance, forward observation, etc. variants instead. Mentioned weights were for 53 tons "basic" and up to 70 tons with additional armor, etc. While I am not entirely against the idea of a "heavy" IFV, I have my reservations, and that weight doesn't seem to buy much in the way of improved armament. Same M242 25m chain gun, 7.62mm coax, and no apparent ATGMs. As far as I know none of the other competitors have released details about their design, but I read somewhere that the entry derived from the German Puma was rejected. To me it seem like the 1990s era Armored Modernization Systems planned called for a much better IFV, although AFAIK they never got far into the design phase of that.

I am afraid my Russian is a bit lacking. What exactly is the kill mechanism of this APS? Looks rather unusual.

I thought I had seen it all with the pink AR15s. Guess not.

If I recall correctly the F-15E with CFTs carries more internal fuel than the Su-27/30/35. I think the Australians are more interested in something a bit cheaper to operate however. F-15s and Su-27s are pricy.

Are these actually T-72As or T-72M1s? I thought the Soviets didn't export to the actual T-72A? Didn't the Syrians have some with K-5 ERA too?

The attached SA-7 is an odd addition, never seen anything like that before.

I'm betting that active protection systems will indeed be the next major leap in terms of AFV protection, but I have to wonder what counters we will see as active protection systems mature and are fielded. If I recall, the US Army funded a "Counter Active Protection System" program back in the '90s with the aim of researching ways to defeat such systems. Did anything ever come of this? As far as I know only the Russian RPG-30 has attempted to address this directly, although I imagine hypersonic missiles like LOSAT/CKEM would be quite a challenge to intercept.